''   6 


ADAM  AND  CHRIST 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  REPRESENTATION 


STATED    AND    EXPLAINED, 


,  /BY 

E.  C.  WINES,  D.  D. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION, 

NO.  265  CHESTNUT  STREET. 


A  SERMON 

PREACHED  BEFORE  THE  SYNOD  OF  NEW  YORK, 

OCTOBER  16,  1854, 

AND  PUBLISHED  BY  REQUEST  OF  THE  SYNOD. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1855,  by 

A.  W.  MITCHELL,  M.  D., 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern 
District  of  Pennsylvania. 


ADAM   AND    CHEIST 


Rom.  V.  12—19. 


*' "Wherefore,  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  death  by  sin ;  and  so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for 
that  all  have  sinned:  (For  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the 
world  :  but  sin  is  not  imputed  when  there  is  no  law.  Never- 
theless death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  them 
that  had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression, who  is  the  figure, of  him  that  was  to  come.  But 
not  as  the  offence,  so  also  is  the  free  gift.  For  if  through 
the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more  the  grace  of 
God,  and  the  gift  by  grace,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ, 
hath  abounded  unto  many.  And  not  as  it  was  by  one  that 
sinned,  so  is  the  gift :  for  the  judgment  was  by  one  to  con- 
demnation, but  the  free  gift  is  of  many  offences  unto  justi- 
fication. For  if  by  one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one  ; 
much  more  they  which  receive  abundance  of  grace  and  of 
the  gift  of  righteousness  shall  reign  in  life  by  one,  Jesus 
Christ.)  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came 
npon  all  men  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness 
of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life.  For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made 
righteous. 

The  general  subject  of  this  passage 
is  the  fall  and  recovery  of  man.    A  lead- 

C3) 


4  ADAM  AND  CHRIST. 

ing  purpose  of  the  apostle  is  to  magnify 
the  grace  of  God,  and  exalt  our  con- 
ception of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  method  by  which  he  seeks  to 
compass  this  design,  is  by  instituting  a 
comparison  between  the  evils  resulting 
from  the  apostasy  of  Adam  and  the 
benefits  flowing  from  the  mediation  of 
Christ. 

No  other  passage  in  the  whole  Bible 
has  gained  an  equal  celebrity  with  this 
in  the  annals  of  interpretation.  It  has 
generally  been  thought  not  a  little  ob- 
scure, and  its  interpretation  encompas- 
sed with  difiiculties.  But  the  chief 
difficulty  appears  to  me  to  lie,  not  so 
much  in  the  obscurity  of  the  writer,  as 
in  the  philosophy  of  the  interpreter. 
The  struggle  is  between  the  pride  of 
human  reason  on  the  one  side  and  the 
humbling  doctrines  of  the  gospel  on  the 
other ;  between  human  wisdom  and  di- 


ADAM  AND  CHRIST.  0 

vine  wisdom ;  between  metaphysics  and 
the  word  of  God.  Philosophy  disdains 
to  bow  the  head  or  bend  the  knee  be- 
fore the  cross  of  Jesus.  The  sublime 
mystery  of  the  redemption  is  a  scandal 
to  the  swelling  arrogancy  of  human 
merit.  The  doctrine  of  a  representa- 
tive goodness,  an  imputed  righteousness, 
is  equally  offensive  to  the  wisdom  of 
the  Greek  and  the  prejudice  of  the  Jew, 
to  the  pride  of  philosophic  scepticism, 
and  the  self-sufficiency  of  learned  and 
unlearned  Pharisaism. 

Here  lies  the  difficulty  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  this  passage.  Philosophers 
and  philosophizing  theologians,  with 
whatever  subtleties  of  logic  and  refine- 
ments of  learning,  have  sought  to  bring 
the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Spirit  into 
harmony  with  their  speculative  systems. 
The  doctrine  of  Paul  must  be  made  to 
harmonize  with  the  dogmas  of  human 


0  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

science.  A  compromise  must  be  effected 
between  human  merit  and  divine  grace, 
between  the  wisdom  of  man  in  the  ut- 
terances of  philosophy  and  the  wisdom 
of  God  in  the  utterances  of  revelation. 
The  attempt  to  accomplish  this  object 
has  opened  the  floodgates  of  metaphys- 
ics, giving  full  scope  to  the  ingenuity 
of  the  most  acute  and  subtle  dialecti- 
cians. The  multitude  of  interpreters 
have  come  to  the  study  of  this  passage 
with  some  preconceived  theory  to  de- 
fend. Hence  they  have  sought,  not  so 
much  to  draw  their  opinions  from  it,  as 
to  make  it  yield  a  sense,  which  har- 
monizes with  opinions  previously  exist- 
ing in  their  own  minds. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  obscurity 
and  perplexity  thus  thrown  around  the 
passage,  the  great  truths  taught  in  it 
seem  to  me  to  be  set  forth  with  remarka- 
ble perspicuity.     It  contains  the  state- 


ADAM  AND   CHRIST.  7 

ment  of  a  general  principle,  together 
with  a  two-fold  application  of  it.  The 
principle  is  that  of  substitution  or  repre- 
sentation as  an  element  in  God's  moral 
government.  The  first  application  of 
the  principle  is  in  the  person  of  Adam 
under  the  covenant  of  works.  The 
second  application  of  it  is  in  the  per- 
son of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  under  the 
covenant  of  grace. 

This  analysis  of  the  passage  suggests 
the  order  of  thought  proper  to  be  pur- 
sued in  our  study  of  it.  The  three 
leading  truths  here  taught  are  :    ■ 

1st.  That  a  public  and  representa- 
tive character  belongs  to  both  Adam 
and  Christ. 

2nd.  That  our  entire  nature  was 
tried,  miscarried,  and  fell  under  con- 
demnation in  Adam. 

3d.  That  the  same  nature  that  sin- 
ned was  admitted  to  a  new  probation  in 


8  ADAM    AND     CHRIST. 

Christ,  which  issued  favourably,  so  that 
sinners  who  believe  in  him  are  recover- 
ed by  his  righteousness. 

It  is  proposed,  by  the  help  of  the  di- 
vine Spirit,  to  open,  establish,  and  illus- 
trate these  doctrines,  in  the  ensuing 
discourse. 

I.  My  first  proposition  is :  A  public 
and  representative  character  attaches 
both  to  Adam  and  to  Christ;  herein 
the  former  was  a  type  of  the  latter,  the 
relation  which  Adam  bore  to  his  pos- 
terity being  the  same  as  that  which 
Christ  bears  to  believers. 

The  representative  relation  of  Adam 
is  evident  from  the  whole  drift  of  the 
apostle's  argument.  He  reasons  thus 
in  V.  12 — 14  :  Sin  was  introduced  into 
the  world  by  one  man.  Death  is  the 
fruit  of  sin.  All  die,  because  all  are 
sinners.  But  in  what  manner  have  all 
sinned  ?    Multitudes  have  never  sinned 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  9 

after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  trans- 
gression. They  have  never  violated, 
personally,  either  the  law  of  nature  or 
the  law  of  revelation.  This  is  the  case 
of  all  who  die  in  infancy.  But  sin  is 
not  imputed  where  there  is  no  law. 
The  very  essence  of  sin  lies  in  the 
transgression  of  law.  Hence  infants 
are  sinners,  since  they  die  as  well  as 
adults.  Hence,  too,  they  are  sinners 
by  the  transgression  of  some  law.  But 
there  is  no  law,  which  infants  can  have 
broken,  except  the  law  given  to  Adam; 
and  there  is  no  sin,  of  which  infants 
can  have  been  guilty,  but  their  sin  in 
Adam.  Consequently,  Adam  must  have 
borne  to  his  posterity  the  relation  of 
representative ;  and  what  he  did  in  that 
character,  they  did  in  him.  In  other 
words,  and  more-  concisely — where 
there  is  death,  there  is  sin ;  where 
there  is  sin,  there  is  law ;  where  pen- 


10  ADAM  AND   CHRIST. 

alty  is  inflicted,  there  must  have  been 
a  violation  of  law;  where  those  are 
punished  who  have  no  personal  sin,  the 
sin  of  another  must  be  imputed  to 
them ;  and  where  the  sin  of  one  is  im- 
puted to  another,  the  one  must  be  the 
representative  of  the  other.  The  reas- 
oning is  from  death  to  sin ;  from  sin  to 
law ;  from  the  infliction  of  penalty  to 
the  violation  of  law ;  from  the  punish- 
ment of  the  personally  innocent  to  im- 
putation ;  and  from  imputation  to  re- 
presentation. 

Moral  arguments,  do  not,  I  think, 
admit  of  a  nearer  approach  to  mathe- 
matical demonstration  than  this.  The 
only  thing  assumed,  in  this  paraphrase 
of  the  apostle's  argument,  is,  that  by 
the  persons  designated  as  those  who 
"  have  not  sinned  after  the  similitude 
of  Adam's  transgression,"  infants  are 
meant.     It  is  difficult  to  imagine  any 


ADAM  AND   CHRIST.  11 

other  rational  meaning  of  the  phrase. 
Accordingly,  by  the  persons  who  thus 
sinned,  Warburton,  Whitby,  Bloom- 
field,  and  other  Arminian  as  well  as 
Calvinistic  interpreters,  understand — 
to  borrow  the  very  words  of  the  learned 
prelate  first  named — ''  those  who  died 
before  they  came  to  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,  viz. :  infants  and  idiots." 

The  doctrine  of  Adam's  representa- 
tive relation  is  also  unequivocally 
taught  in  vs.  15 — 19.  Here,  by  almost 
every  conceivable  form  of  expression, 
it  is  affirmed  that  a  condemnatory  sen- 
tence was  passed  upon  all  men  on  ac- 
count of  one  man  ;  nay,  on  account  of 
a  single  ofience  of  that  one  man.  What 
rational  interpretation  can  be  given  to 
such  a  proposition,  but  that  the  many 
acted  in  the  gne  on  the  principle  of  re- 
presentation ? 

The  language  of  the  19  th  verse  places 


12  ADAM   AND   CHRIST/ 

this  point  in  the  clearest  possible  light, 
surrounding  it  with  a  blaze  of  demon- 
stration. Literally  translated,  it  reads 
thus:  "As  by  the  disobedience  of  the 
one  the  many  were  constituted  sinners, 
so  by  the  obedience  of  the  one  the  many 
shall  be  constituted  righteous."  What 
form  of  words  could  more  plainly  de- 
clare the  doctrine  of  representation  ? 
It  is,  indeed,  alleged  by  theologians  who 
deny  this  doctrine,  that  the  first  propo- 
sition here  means  no  more  than  that 
Adam's  sin  was  the  occasion  of  other 
men's  becoming  sinners.  They  aver 
that  all  the  apostle  teaches  is,  that, 
somehow,  as  a  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin,  all  men  become  depraved,  and  that 
the  sole  ground  of  their  condemnation 
is  this  inherent  corruption  of  nature, 
and  the  personal  sins  flowing  from  it. 

But  see  the  violence  which  this  in- 
terpretation does  to  the  apostle's  Ian- 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  13 

guage,  as  also  the  dangerous  heresy 
which  it  involves.  The  passage  con- 
sists of  two  propositions.  The  mould 
into  which  these  two  propositions  are 
cast,  is  the  same.  The  structure  of 
both  is  the  same.  The  leading  terms 
in  both  are  the  same.  Of  course  the 
principle  of  interpretation  applicable  to 
both  must  be  the  same ;  and  the  sense 
of  both  must  be  commensurate.  That 
is  to  say,  the  same  words,  in  the  same 
relations,  and  having  the  same  gram- 
matical construction,  must  have  a  like 
interpretation.  What  follows?  Clearly 
this  :  that,  if  the  first  proposition  mean 
simply  that,  as  a  consequence  of  Adam's 
disobedience,  men  become  personally 
sinful,  and  this  personal  sinfulness  is 
the  alone  ground  of  their  condemna- 
tion, then  the  second  proposition  must 
mean,  that,  as  a  consequence  of  the  obe- 
dience of  Christ,  believers  become  per- 


14  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

son  ally  holy,  and  this  personal  holi- 
ness is  the  alone  ground  of  their  jus- 
tification. And  what  is  this  but  a 
subversion  of  the  gospel,  and  a  repub- 
lication of  the  covenant  of  works? 

Ha\dng  proved  the  representative 
relation  of  Adam  to  his  natural  chil- 
dren, let  us  inquire  whether  Christ 
stood  in  a  similar  relation  to  his  spirit- 
ual children. 

A  main  purpose  of  the  apostle  in  the 
passage  before  us,  is  to  establish  a  simi- 
litude between  Adam  and  Christ.  The 
same  reasoning,  therefore,  is  applicable 
to  both.  The  same  terms  are,  again 
a.n.d  again,  employed  in  reference  to 
both.  In  V.  14,  the  former  is  expressly 
declared  to  be  a  type  of  the  latter.  It 
follows  that,  if  the  one  is  a  representa- 
tive, so  is  the  other.  The  representar 
tive  character  of  Adam  draws  after  it 
the  representative  character  of  Christ. 


ADAM  AND   CHRIST.  15 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  from  scripture, 
than  that  Adam  and  Christ  sustained 
peculiar  relations  to  the  human  family ; 
insomuch  that  they  are  called  by  the 
apostle  '^  the  first  man"  and  "  the  second 
man,"  as  if  the  whole  human  race  were 
either  annihilated  in  their  presence,  or 
•absorbed  in  their  persons. 

The  whole  doctrine  of  atonement, 
which  constitutes  the  sum  of  the  gos- 
pel, is  built  upon  the  representative 
character  and  relation  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  This  divine  person  is 
everywhere  spoken  of  in  the  scriptures 
as  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  The  sacrifices  of 
the  law  were  but  shadows  of  this  only 
real  sacrifice  for  sin,  deriving  all  their 
efficacy  from  their  relation  to  it.  But 
all  the  expiatory  sacrifices  of  the  law 
were  of  a  vicarious  and  representative 
import.  Into  every  such  sacrifice  there 
entered  three  leading  ideas,  viz.:   the 


16  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

symbolical  transfer  of  the  offerer's  sins 
to  the  sacrificial  victim,  the  symbolical 
pollution  of  the  victim  consequent  upon 
this  translation  of  guilt,  and  the  re- 
demption of  the  transgressor  by  the 
substitution  of  the  victim  in  his  place. 
This  view  of  the  nature  and  import 
of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  is  held  by  all 
orthodox  Christian  divines,  and  by  the 
most  illustrious  of  the  Hebrew  doctors. 
The  very  heathens  themselves — doubt- 
less deriving  their  ideas  from  that  ori- 
ginal light  of  revelation,  which,  though 
clouded  and  dispersed,  still  continued 
to  emit  some  rays  of  its  primeval  splen- 
dor— held  to  the  notion  of  a  substitu- 
tion of  the  sacrificial  victim  to  suffer 
death  in  place  of  the  transgressor.  Such, 
as  we  learn  from  classic  authors  of  un- 
doubted authority,  was  the  belief  of  the 
Egyptians,  the  Greeks,  the  Eomans, 
the  Gauls,  and  other  nations  of  anti- 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  17 

quity.  A  remarkable  passage  to  this 
effect  occurs  in  Ovid,  where  the  poet 
represents  the  several  parts  of  the  vic- 
titn  as  equivalents  for  the  corresponding 
parts  of  the  offerer.  It  was  an  express 
dogma  of  the  Druidical  theology,  that, 
unless  the  life  of  men  were  given  for 
the  life  of  men,  the  immortal  gods 
could  not  be  appeased. 

But  what  ideas  on  this  subject  do 
we  find  in  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament ?  The  forerunner  of  Messiah, 
in  announcing  his  advent,  said,  "Be- 
hold the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world."  These 
words  could  not  fail  to  call  up  in  a  Jew- 
ish mind  all  those  ideas,  which  entered 
into  the  general  notion  of  sacrifice — 
substitution,  transfer  of  guilt,  vicarious 
suffering,  atonement,  and  redemption. 
Thus  was  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  the  first 
proclamation  of  his  personal  presence 
2* 


18  ADAM  AND  CHRIST.' 

upon  earth,  presented  to  the  church  as 
the  surety  and  representative  of  his 
people.  And  faithfully  did  the  inspired 
penmen  of  the  New  Testament,  as  it 
would  be  easy  to  show  by  a  detail  of 
passages,  reproduce,  amplify,  and  en- 
force this  consolatory  conception  of  the 
relation  of  our  adorable  Kedeemer  to 
the  church  which  he  purchased  with 
his  blood. 

II.  My  second  proposition  is  this: 
No  mere  private  individual  was  tried 
in  Eden ;  the  probation,  though  in  the 
person  of  Adam,  was  of  the  nature  that 
God  had  made ;  and,  as  a  consequence 
of  the  miscarriage  of  the  trial,  the 
whole  race  of  mankind  fell  under  con- 
demnation, became  obnoxious  to  pun- 
ishment, and  are  actually  subjected  to 
penal  evils,  on  account  of  their  sin  in 
him. 

There  are  two  principles,  which  must 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  19 

be  assumed  as  the  basis  of  our  reason- 
ings on  this  subject.  The  first  is,  that 
death  is  a  penal  evil ;  the  second,  that 
the  infliction  of  a  penalty  implies  the 
violation  of  a  law.  These  principles, 
besides  being  very  much  of  the  nature 
of  axioms,  are  plainly  taught  in  the 
Bible.  Both  reason  and  revelation, 
therefore,  bear  concurrent  testimony  to 
their  truth. 

The  doctrine  of  our  church,  on  the 
point  under  consideration,  is  thus  set 
forth  in  the  Larger  Catechism  :  "The 
covenant  being  made  with  Adam,  as  a 
public  character,  not  for  himself  only, 
but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind,  de- 
scending from  him  by  ordinary  genera- 
tion, sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him, 
in  that  first  transgression."  (A.  to  22  Q.) 

This  cardinal  doctrine  of  revelation, 
the  doctrine  of  the  representative  char- 
acter of  lidam,  and  of  our  sin  and  fall 


20  •    ADAM  AND   CHRIST. 

in  him,  is  clearly  q^nd  impressively 
taught  in  our  text.  It  is  a  striking 
fact,  that  within  the  compass  of  eight 
verses,  the  doctrine  is,  either  explicitly 
or  implicitly,  set  forth  in  no  less  than 
ten  distinct  propositions.  Here  they 
are:  1.  "By  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world,  and  death  by  sin,"  v.  12. 
2.  "Death  passed  upon  all  men,  for 
that  all  have  sinned,"  v.  12.  3.  "  Sin  is 
not  imputed,  where  there  is  no  law; 
nevertheless,  death  reigned  from  A(iam 
to  Moses,  even  over  them  that  had  not 
sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's 
transgression,"  vs.  13,  14.  4.  "Adam 
was  a  type  of  Christ,"  v.  14.  5. 
"  Through  the  offence  of  one  many  are 
dead,"  v.  15.  6.  "  The  [sentence]  was 
by  one  that  sinned,"  v.  16.  7.  "  The 
judgment  was  by  one  [offence]  to  con- 
demnation," V.  16.  8.  "By  one  man's 
offence  death  reigned  by  one,"  v.  17, 


ADAM  AND   CHRIST.  21 

9.  "By  the  ojQfence  of  one,  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation," 
V.  18.  10.  "By  one  man's  disobedi- 
ence, many  were  made  sinners,"  v.  19. 

Such  is  the  copiousness  with  which 
the  spirit  of  inspiration  has  here  ex- 
hibited this  fundamental  truth  of  our 
holy  religion.  There  is  no  human  for- 
mulary that  teaches  the  probation  of 
the  race  in  Adam,  the  apostasy  of  the 
race  in  Adam,  the  condemnation  of  the 
race  in  Adam,  and  the  punishment  of 
the  race  on  account  of  their  sin  in  x\dam, 
with  anything  like  the  clearness  and  ful- 
ness of  this  inspired  exhibition  of  the 
truth. 

One  of  two  things  is  certain  :  Either 
we  were  tried  in  Adam,  or  we  were 
not.  If  we  were  not  tried  in  him,  then 
each  individual  of  the  race  is  placed  on 
trial  for  himself — the  covenant  of 
works   is  still   in  force — we   have  re- 


22  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

nounced  the  cross,  and  are  gone  back 

to  Sinai.     If  we  were  tried  in  Adam, 

then,  as  the  issue  of  our  miscarriage  in 

him,  we  have  become  obnoxious  to  all 
...  ' 

the  penal  evils,  in  which  our  principal 

or  representative  himself  was  involved. 

The  sum  is,  that  God,  in  his  supreme 
and  sovereign  wisdom,  gave  his  law  to 
Adam  in  Paradise,  not  only  as  a  rule 
of  obedience,  but  also  as  a  covenant  of 
life ;  that  Adam,  in  this  covenant,  acted 
for  himself  and  his  posterity;  that  he 
was  not  a  private  but  a  public  person, 
sustaining  the  persons  of  all  mankind ; 
and  that,  during  the  pendency  of  the 
trial,  he  had  in  him,  not  merely  as  a 
natural  root  and  common  father,  but 
also  as  a  federal  head  and  legal  repre- 
sentative, the  whole  race  of  men,  who 
^'  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him,  in 
his  first  transgression." 

Although  the  doctrine  of  the  impu- 


ADAM  AND   CHRIST.  23 

tation  of  Adam's  first  sin  to  us  lies,  as 
Dr.  Owen  has  said,  "in  the  very  founda- 
tion of  all  wherein  we  have  to  do  with 
God,"  yet  it  is  a  doctrine  denied  and 
opposed  by  many  in  our  day.  These 
persons  object  to  it  chiefly  on  the 
ground,  that  such  a  constitution  of 
things  is  a  breach  of  justice.  But  is  it 
so  ?  Is  the  principle  of  representation, 
the  principle  that  one  person  may  act 
in  and  by  another,  a  violation  of  jus- 
tice ?  This  is  so  far  from  being  true, 
that  human  society  could  not  exist,  nor 
the  affairs  of  life  move  on,  except  un- 
der the  operation  of  the  representative 
principle.  Guardianships,  trusteeships, 
commercial  agencies,  constitutional  le- 
gislation, and  international  negotiations, 
are  all  based  upon  this  principle. 

Innumerable  illustrations  might  be 
adduced.  I  must  content  myself  with 
one  or  two. 


24.  'ADAM  AND  CHRIST. 

The  President  of  Mexico,  aggrieved 
by  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  this 
country,  refused  to  receive  a  minister 
plenipotentiary  from  the  United  States. 
We  construed  his  refusal  to  be  the  re- 
fusal of  the  Mexican  nation.  Was  not 
such  a  construction  in  accordance  with 
the  universal  conceptions  of  men  ? 

A  British  subject  a  few  years  ago 
burned  an  American  steamer  on  the 
waters  of  the  St.  Lawrence.  The  whole 
country  was  in  a  blaze.  It  was  a  ques- 
tion of  war  with  a  powerful  empire. 
But  that  question  turned  upon  another, 
viz. :  whether  the  man  acted  in  a  pri- 
vate or  public  relation ;  that  is  to  say, 
whether  the  deed  was  the  act  of  the  indi- 
vidual, or  the  act  of  the  nation  in  him. 

Our  own  government  affords  a  good 
illustration  of  the  representative  prin- 
ciple. We  are  in  the  constant  habit  of 
speaking  of  the  American   people  as 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  25 

assembled  in  Congress,  and  as  making 
their  own  laws.  But  how  are  the  peo- 
ple assembled  in  Congress  ?  and  how 
do  they  make  their  own  laws  ?  No 
otherwise  than  in  and  by  their  repre- 
sentatives. It  is  a  point,  deserving 
special  attention  here,  that  the  whole 
body  of  the  people  are  bound  by  the 
acts  of  their  representatives — not  only 
voters,  who  bind  themselves,  but  non- 
voters — women,  children,  and  aliens — 
who  have  no  voice  in  the  choice  of  re- 
presentatives. 

Thus  it  appears,  that  the  principle 
of  representation  is  founded  in  nature 
and  necessity.  It  pervades  all  the  ope- 
rations of  society.  It  meets  a  response 
in  every  human  heart.  It  has  its  seat 
in  the  very  depths  of  our  mental  and 
moral  constitution.  It  is  familiar  to 
the  thought  and  the  practice  of  our 
universal  humanity.  And,  (a  consider- 
3 


26  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

ation  investing  it  with  supreme  dignity 
and  importance,)  it  would  seem  to  be  an 
essential  condition  of  a  scheme  of  re- 
demption for  fallen  men.  For,  upon 
what  other  principle  than  that  of  re- 
presentation are  vicarious  obedience  and 
suffering  possible?  Upon  what  other 
principle  can  the  righteousness  of  Christ 
become  the  righteousness  of  believing 
sinners  ? 

To  the  perverse  disputer,  who,  in  the 
insolent  pride  of  human  reason,  would 
prescribe  to  the  Almighty  the  way  in 
which  he  should  conduct  his  creatures 
to  happiness,  we  might  reply  by  apply- 
ing his  own  argument  to  the  ordinary 
course  of  events.  For  he  who  impugns 
the  doctrine  of  representation  and  im- 
putation does,  in  the  same  breath,  im- 
peach the  justice  of  providence.  If  a 
father  pursues  a  career  of  crime,  do  not 
his  children^  at  every  turn,  meet  the 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  27' 

evil  consequences  of  his  conduct?  It 
avails  nothing  here  to  say,  that  these 
providential  evils  are  the  effect  of  an 
established  cgnstitution.  That  consti- 
tution itself  is  the  effect  of  a  decree  of 
God ;  and  every  one  of  its  operations  is 
as  much  the  appointment  of  the  al- 
mighty Framer,  as  if  it  were  the  direct 
result  of  his  creative  will. 

After  all,  they  who  reject  the  idea 
of  imputed  guilt,  do  but  escape  from 
one  difficulty,  to  rush  into  another  of 
still  greater  magnitude.  That  all  man- 
kind are  involved  in  the  consequences 
of  Adam's  sin,  is  a  fact  too  clearly  re- 
vealed in  the  Bible,  and  too  evident 
from  universal  experience,  to  be  dis- 
puted. The  doctrine  of  representation 
accounts  for  this  fact  upon  a  principle 
congenial  to  our  nature,  familiar  to  our 
conceptions,  and  incorporated  into  our 
daily  practice.     Any  other  view  of  the 


28  ADAM  AND   CHRIST. 

matter  involves  the  absurdity  of  an 
effect  without  a  cause.  To  say  that 
the  evil  happens  according  to  the  estab- 
lished order  of  things,  and  in  the  way 
of  natural  sequence,  is  but  to  push  the 
difficulty  a  little  further  off.  It  is  not 
to  meet  it,  but  to  sidle  past  it.  It  is 
not  to  remove  it,  but  to  bury  it  beneath 
unmeaning  verbiage.  Who  ordained 
that  constitution  of  things,  by  means 
of  which  the  evil  comes  ?  Did  not 
God  ?  And  are  not  all  its  sequences  as 
properly  his  acts,  as  if  they  were  inde- 
pendent operations,  and  wholly  discon- 
nected from  second  causes? 

But  the  deepest  darkness,  on  any 
theory  of  moral  administration  other 
than  that  of  imputation,  gathers  around 
God's  providence  towards  infants.  If 
it  is  unjust  to  impute  sin  to  them,  and 
on  that  ground  to  subject  them  to  suf- 
fering, what  shall  we  say  of  the  justice 


-       ADAM  AND  CHRIST.  29 

of  subjecting  them  to  the  very  same 
suffering  on  no  ground  at  all,  and  in 
disregard  and  despite  of  a  spotless  in- 
nocence ?  Believers  in  imputation  hold 
that  infants  are  treated  as  sinners,  be- 
cause they  are  sinners  ;  not  indeed  by 
personal  disobedience,  but  judicially 
constituted  such,  by  having  the  disobe- 
dience of  their  federal  representative 
imputed  to  them — charged  to  their  ac- 
count. Disbelievers  in  imputation  hold 
that  infants  are  treated  as  sinners, 
though  they  are  as  free  from  guilt  as 
Adam  at  the  instant  of  his  creation. 
Which  of  these  theories  is  most  dis- 
honouring to  God  I  leave  to  your  own 
candour  to  judge. 

III.  My  third  proposition  is :  By  the 
abounding  grace  of  God,  a  new  proba- 
tion has  been  admitted  in  the  person 
of  his  incarnate  Son ;  this  second  trial 
issued  favourably,  the  illustrious  pro- 
3* 


30  ADAM    AND    CHRIST. 

Vjationer  having  fulfilled  all  righteous- 
ness; and,  as  a  consequence,  believing 
sinners  are  redeemed  and  saved  by  his 
merits. 

On  the  criminal  revolt  and  apostasy 
of  man,  his  Creator  might  in  justice 
have  exacted  the  penalty  denounced 
against  transgression.  He  might  have 
proceeded  at  once  to  vindicate  the  ma- 
jesty and  authority  of  his  law.  No 
attribute  of  the  divine  nature,  no  utter- 
ance of  the  divine  voice,  no  principle 
of  the  divine  equity,  demanded  even  a 
reprieve  of  the  sentence  against  man ; 
much  less,  any  effectual  interposition 
in  his  behalf  on  the  part  of  Deity. 
Such  interposition,  therefore,  would  be 
an  act  of  sovereign  grace.  One  neces- 
sity there  was  in  the  case,  and  only 
one,  viz. :  that  if  God  interposed  at  all, 
it  should  be  in  a  manner  consistent  with 
the  infinite  perfections  of  his  nature. 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  31 

The  fact  of  God's  gracious  interpo- 
sition for  man's  deliverance  from  death 
and  restoration  to  life,  is  manifest  and 
acknowledged.  We  are  now  to  inquire 
into  the  manner  and  extent  of  it. 

In  V.  14,  the  apostle  affirms,  that 
Adam  was  a  type  of  Christ.  With 
wonderful  exactness  do  the  type  and 
the  antitype  agree  together.  The  com- 
parison consists  of  five  couplets ;  Adam 
and  Christ,  sin  and  righteousness,  sin- 
ners and  righteous  persons,  condemna- 
tion and  justification,  death  and  life. 
Placing  the  ^ve  terms  on  each  side  of 
the  comparison  together,  the  relation 
may  be  denoted  thus:  Adam,  sin,  sin- 
ners, condemnation,  death  —  Christ, 
righteousness,  righteous  persons,  justi- 
fication, life.  As  Adam  by  his  sin 
made  sinners  of  all  his  natural  poste- 
rity, involving  them  in  condemnation 
and  death,  so  Christ  by  his  righteous- 


32  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

ness  constitutes  righteous  all  who  be- 
lieve in  him,  procuring  for  them  justifi- 
cation unto  life. 

How  exact  the  correspondence  !  Is 
Adam  the  author  of  sin  ?  Christ  is  the 
author  of  righteousness.  Is  Adam  the 
cause  of  other  men's  becoming  sinners  ? 
Christ  is  the  cause  of  other  men's  be- 
coming righteous.  Is  the  sin  of  Adam 
the  ground  of  condemnation?  The 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  ground 
of  justification.  Does  the  condemna- 
tion through  Adam  bring  death  ?  The 
justification  through  Christ  brings  life. 
Are  the  many  judicially  constituted  sin- 
ners by  the  disobedience  of  the  one  ? 
The  many  are  judicially  constituted 
righteous  by  the  obedience  of  the  other. 
Does  the  principle  of  representation  ob- 
tain under  the  one  economy  ?  So  does 
it  under  the  other.  Is  imputation  the 
mode  whereby  this  principle  exerts  its 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  33 

force  in  the  one  case  ?  So  is  it  in  the 
other.  Is  the  first  covenant  the  minis- 
try of  death  to  all  men  descending  from 
Adam  by  ordinary  generation?  The 
second  covenant  is  the  ministry  of  life 
to  all  men  who  believe  in  Christ.  Was 
Adam  the  federal  head  of  his  natural 
children  ?  Christ  is  the  federal  head  of 
his  spiritual  children. 

In  all  these  respects  the  similitude  is 
admirable.  In  the  principle  of  their 
respective  economies,  and  in  their  re- 
lation, in  the  one  case  to  the  apostasy, 
in  the  other  to  the  recovery,  the  corres- 
pondence is  exact  to  a  tittle.  The 
mode  of  the  apostasy  is  the  mode  of  the 
recovery.  The  federal  headship  of  the 
first  Adam,  and  the  federal  headship 
of  the  second  Adam,  are  counterparts 
of  each  other.  The  first  Adam  sus- 
tained the  persons  of  all  who  were 
federally  in  him,  i.  e.y  of  his  natural  pes- 


34  ADAM  AND   CHRIST. 

terity;  and  the  second  Adam  sustained 
the  persons  of  all  who  were  federally 
in  him,  i.  e.,  of  elect  sinners.  God  ac- 
counts as  done  by  the  represented  what 
was  done  by  the  first  representative; 
and  he  equally  accounts  as  done  by  the 
represented  what  was  done  by  the  sec- 
ond representative.  Sin  and  death 
were  conveyed  by  the  one  to  all  his 
natural  seed ;  righteousness  and  life  are 
conveyed  by  the  other  to  all  his  spirit- 
ual seed.  The  demerit  of  Adam  is  im- 
puted to  us  to  condemnation  ;  the  merit 
of  Christ  is  imputed  to  us  to  justifica- 
tion. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  in  the  redemption,  is  the  repre- 
sentative of  his  people,  and  that  the 
method  by  which  he  redeems  them  is 
that  of  substitution — the  substitution 
of  his  obedience  for  their  obedience,  the 
substitution  of  his  death  for  their  death, 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  35 

the  substitution  of  himself  for  them, 
"  the  just  for  the  unj ust."  Substitution 
as  a  means  of  atonement  for  sin  and  re- 
conciliation to  God,  as  we  have  seen 
under  the  first  head,  was  a  doctrine 
held  by  the  entire  ancient  world,  as 
well  Gentile  as  Jewish.  This  doctrine 
of  a  vicarious  obedience  and  a  vicarious 
suffering  is  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  reve- 
lation. It  pervades  the  whole  Bible. 
It  gives  tone  and  colouring  to  all  its 
teachings.  It  is  the  keynote  to  both  its 
Testaments.  It  is  the  sum  and  essence 
of  a  religious  system  suited  to  the  wants 
of  sinners.  Hence  the  Christianity 
which  denies  it  is  no  Christianity.  At 
best,  it  is  but  the  mangled  and  distorted 
form,  the  meagre  skeleton  of  religion, 
as  religion  is  revealed  in  God's  word. 
As  a  religious  system,  it  scarcely  makes 
an  approach  to  what  the  deepest  con- 
sciousness of  our  moral  nature,  in  its 


36  ADAM   AND  CHRIST.     . 

fallen  state,  imperatively  demands,  as  a 
condition  of  spiritual  peace. 

All  this  is  abundantly  taught  in  our 
text,  as  also  in  many  other  scriptures, 
which  there  is  not  time  now  to  cite. 

It  remains  to  inquire  into  the  extent 
of  Christ's  satisfaction.  It  is  import- 
ant, in  this  inquiry,  to  bear  in  mind, 
that  the  comparison  is  between  the  re- 
sults of  the  apostasy,  and  the  results 
of  the  recovery.  Keeping  this  in  me- 
mory, let  us  bring  together,  in  one  view, 
all  the  parts  of  the  passage  bearing 
upon  the  point  in  question.  I  will  pre- 
sent them  in  a  more  literal  version  than 
that  contained  in  the  common  transla- 
tion, a  version  whose  verbal  exactness 
will  aid  us  in  understanding  the  mind 
of  the  Spirit.  ^^If  by  the  offence  of 
the  one  the  many  died,  much  more  the 
grace  of  God,  and  the  gift  by  the  grace 
of  the   one   man,  Jesus   Christ,  hath 


ADAM  AND   CHRIST.  37 

abounded  unto  the  many."  "As  by 
one  offence  sentence  came  upon  all  men 
to  condemnation,  so  also  by  one  right- 
eousness the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men 
to  justification  of  life."  "  As  by  the  dis- 
obedience of  the  one  man  the  many 
were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience 
of  the  one  man  the  many  shall  be  made 
righteous."  The  main  difference  be- 
tween this  translation  and  the  common 
one  consists  in  the  retention  of  the  ar- 
ticle, as  it  stands  in  the  Greek,  by  which 
a  definite  sense  is  obtained,  instead  of  a 
somewhat  indefinite  one.  On  the  seve- 
ral propositions  of  the  apostle,  as  ren- 
dered above,  I  observe,  first,  that  when, 
in  speaking  of  a  multitude,  the  persons 
composing  it  are  distinguished  as  the 
one  and  the  many,  the  many,  in  anti- 
thesis to  the  one,  must  be  equivalent  to 
all.  Secondly,  the  many,  of  whom  con- 
demnation is  predicated,  are,  obviously, 
4 


38  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

all  who  were  in  Adam,  when  he  was  a 
public  character.  Thirdly,  it  is  but  a 
fair  corollary  from  this,  that  the  many, 
of  whom  justification  is  affirmed,  must, 
in  like  manner,  mean,  not  all  mankind, 
but -all  who  are  in  Christ,  all  to  whom 
his  federal  headship  extends. 

It  is  true,  that  in  both  cases  the  terms 
employed  are  unlimited ;  yet  in  both 
there  is  a  limitation.  All  men  are  not 
brought  into  a  state  of  condemnation 
by  the  sin  of  Adam — not  the  man 
Christ  Jesus;  and  all  men  are  not 
brought  into  a  state  of  justification  by 
the  righteousness  of  the  second  Adam 
— not  unbelievers.  The  condemned 
through  Adam,  and  the  justified  through 
Christ  cannot  be  co-extensive ;  for  such 
a  doctrine  would  lead  to  blank  univer- 
salism,  and  overthrow  the  plainest  truth 
in  all  the  Bible.  Two  consequences, 
abhorrent  alike  to  reason  and  Scripture, 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  39 

would  be  involved  in  such  an  interpre- 
tation ;  first,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
would  have  been  born  under  condemn- 
ation ;  and,  secondly,  the  salvation  of 
the  w^hole  human  race  w^ould  be  not 
only  possible,  but  certain.  What  the 
apostle  teaches,  and  all  that  he  teaches, 
is,  that  as  on  account  of  the  sin  of 
Adam,  all  connected  with  him  by  ordi- 
nary generation  are  condemned,  so  on 
account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
all  connected  with  him  by  faith  are  jus- 
tified. 

The  passage,  therefore,  affords  no 
support  to  the  doctrine  of  indefinite 
atonement,  or  universal  redemption.  On- 
the  contrary,  so  far  as  it  bears  upon  the 
point  at  all,  it  is  opposed  to  that  theory. 
It  does  not,  perhaps,  decide  the  question, 
but  it  fairly  opens  it.  Let  us,  therefore, 
briefly  interrogate  both  reason  and  Scrip- 
ture on  this  point. 


40  ADAM  AND  CHRIST. 

It  is  safe  to  reason  from  the  effect 
produced  by  a  designing  agent  to  the 
purpose  of  such  agent.  Corn  is  grown 
in  a  certain  field  ;  from  this  it  is  certain 
that  the  cultivator  purposed  to  raise 
corn  there.  A  father  has  given  a  lib- 
eral education  to  one  of  his  sons,  and 
withheld  it  from  the  rest ;  this  makes 
clear  his  purpose  to  that  effect.  In  re- 
gard to  human  agents  and  their  actions 
we  reason  in  this  manner  with  confi- 
dence. Why  should  we  hesitate  to  ap- 
ply the  same  method  to  the  divine 
doings  ?  We  ought  to  feel  the  greater 
confidence  in  such  reasoning  when  ap- 
plied to  the  supreme  agent,  since  his 
wisdom  is  omniscient,  and  cannot  be 
baffled,  since  his  })ower  is  infinite,  and 
cannot  be  defeated.  How,  then,  is  it 
possible  to  deny  the  force  of  such  argu- 
ments, or  the  justness  of  such  inferences, 
as  these  following  ?     A  part  of  the  an- 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  41 

gels  maintained  their  allegiance  to  God  ; 
therefore  it  was  the  purpose  of  God  that 
they  should  stand  firm.  Another  part 
apostatized ;  therefore  it  was  the  pur- 
pose of  God  that  they  should  fall.  Adam 
transgressed  the  covenant  of  his  God, 
and  involved  himself  and  his  posterity 
in  guilt  and  condemnation ;  therefore  it 
was  the  divine  purpose  that  this  should 
be.  A  part  of  the  human  race  are  saved 
by  Christ,  and  another  part  are  not; 
such,  therefore,  was  the  divine  purpose 
concerning  them.  Wisdom  never .  acts 
without  a  purpose,  and  eternal  Avisdom 
can  frame  no  new  purposes.  To  say 
that  God  acts  without  a  purpose  is  to 
deprive  him  of  wisdom  ;  to  say  that  any 
new  purpose  can  arise  in  his  mind  is  to 
impute  to  him  mutability.  As  surely, 
therefore,  as  God  saves  a  part  of  the 
human  family,  and  leaves  the  rest  to 

perish,  so  surely  did  he  purpose  to  do  it. 
4* 


42  ADAM  AND  CHRIST. 

The  certainty  of  the  action  determines 
the  certainty  of  the  purpose,  and  the 
extent  of  the  action  determines  the  ex- 
tent of  the  purpose ;  while  the  immuta- 
bility of  God  involves  the  eternity  of 
the  purpose. 

It  is  objected  to  this  view,  that  it 
converts  men  into  machines,  and  makes 
God  the  author  of  sin ;  and  the  modern 
objector,  like  the  cavillers  of  Paul's  day, 
exultingly  asks,  "  Why  doth  he  yet  find 
fault  ?  for  who  hath'  resisted  his  will  T 
The  point  of  the  objection  is,  that  a  di- 
vine purpose  and  a  free  human  agency 
are  incompatible ;  so  incompatible  that, 
if  such  purpose  have  respect  to  a  sinful 
action,  the  human  agent  is  free  from 
blame,  and  God  is  the  author  of  the  sin. 

Is  this  so  ?  It  was  the  purpose  of 
God  that  Pharaoh  should  not  let  his 
people  go,  till  he  had  shown  his  won- 
ders in  Egypt ;  that  Sennacherib  should 


ADAM   AND  CHRIST.  43 

invade  the  territory  of  Israel  for  the 
punishment  of  its  inhabitants ;  and  that 
Jewish  scribes  and  priests  should  cru- 
cify his  Son.  Did  these  divine  purposes 
destroy  the  free  agency  of  the  actors,  or 
make  God  the  author  of  their  sin  ?  No 
n^an  will  dare  utter  such  a  blasphemy. 
How,  then,  does  a  divine  purpose  that 
some  angels  should  fall,  destroy  their 
free  agency  in  rebelling,  or  make  God 
the  author  of  their  sin  ?  How  does  a 
divine  purpose  that  man  should  apos- 
tatize, destroy  his  freedom  iu  aposta- 
tizing, and  make  God  the  author  of  his 
sin  ?  How  does  a  divine  purpose  not  to 
save  a  part  of  the  human  race,  interfere 
wdth  their  freedom  in  sinning,  or  make 
God  the  author  of  their  damnation  ?  If 
a  divine  purpose  does  not  clash  with  free 
agency  in  one  instance,  it  need  not 
clash  with  it  in  any.  If  it  is  consistent 
with  man's  freedom  in  one  event,  it  is 


44  ADAxM  AND  CHRIST. 

consistent  with  his  freedom  in  all  events. 
But  a  divine  purpose  and  free  agency,  a 
divine  purpose  and  a  sinful  free  agency, 
did  meet  in  the  obstinacy  of  Pharaoh, 
in  the  ambition  of  Sennacherib,  and  in 
the  malignity  of  the  murderers  of  God's 
incarnate  Son.  This  none  can  deny, 
without  denying  the  plainest  Scripture 
testimonies.  Why,  then,  may  not  a  di- 
vine purpose  and  a  sinful  free  agency 
have  met  in  the  rebellion  of  angels  and 
the  apostasy  of  man  ?  Why  may  they 
not  meet  in  the  final  condemnation  and 
ruin  of  men  ?  If  God  must  necessarily 
be  the  author  of  sin  by  decreeing  these 
events,  then,  by  a  like  necessity,  he 
must  be  the  author  of  Pharaoh's  sin  in 
refusing  to  let  the  people  go,  of  Sen- 
nacherib's sin  in  his  wars  against  Je- 
rusalem, and  of  the  Jews'  sin  in  crucify- 
ing the  Lord  of  glory,  because  he  de- 
creed those  events.     No  difference  can 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  45 

be  shown  in  the  principle  of  these 
several  cases.  "  God  decreed  the  fall 
of  man,  therefore  he  is  the  author  of  the 
sin,  by  which  that  event  was  effected,'* 
and  "  God  decreed  the  death  of  Christ, 
therefore  he  is  the  author  of  the  sin, 
by  which  that  event  was  effected,"  are 
one  and  the  same  argument.  If  the 
conclusion  is  logical  in  the  one  case,  it 
is  logical  in  the  other,  and  if  it  is  illogical 
in  the  one,  it  is  illogical  in  the  other. 
If  we  feel  that  it  would  be  blasphemy 
when  stated  in  reference  to  the  death 
of  Christ,  we  must  own  that  it  would  be 
an  equal  blasphemy  when  uttered  in  re- 
ference to  the  fall  of  Adam.  It  is  true, 
that  we  know  the  reasons  which  moved 
God  to  decree  the  death  of  his  Son, 
while  the  reasons  which  moved  him 
to  decree  the  fall  of  angels,  the  apos- 
tasy of  man,  and  the  restriction  of  sal- 
vation to  a  part  of  mankind,  are  un- 


46  ADAM  AND   CHRIST. 

known  to  us.  Doubtless  there  are  rea- 
sons for  these  decrees,  as  wise  in 
themselves  and  as  honourable  to  God, 
as  for  the  decree  respecting  the  death 
of  his  Son;  and,  if  we  knew  them, 
we  should  see  the  divine  glory  shining 
as  radiantly  in  the  former  as  in  the  lat- 
ter. The  unfathomableness  of  the  di- 
vine decrees  is  no  argument  against 
their  existence,  their  wisdom,  or  their 
goodness.  To  suppose  that  the  counsels 
of  the  Most  High  are  not  good  and  glori- 
ous, because  we  cannot  fathom  the 
reasons  on  which  they  rest,  is  to  make 
man's  folly  superior  to  God's  wisdom.  It 
is  to  exalt  human  is^norance  to  sit  in' 
judgment  on  the  divine  sovereignty. 

The  teaching  of  reason,  then,  on  this 
subject  is,  that  the  original  design  of  the 
death  of  Christ  must  have  had  the  same 
extent,  which  the  ultimate  actual  ap- 
pUcation  of  it  to  saving  purposes  shall 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  47 

have.  If  all  men  shall  finally  be  saved, 
then  the  design  of  Christ's  death  em- 
braced all  men.  If  only  a  part  shall  be 
savedj  then,  since  God  cannot  be  disap- 
pointed of  his  purpose,  his  design  in  the 
death  of  his  Son  must  have  been  from 
the  beginning  limited  to  a  part. 

But  what  is  the  voice  of  Scripture  on 
this  subject?  What  does  it  teach  re- 
specting the  divine  purpose  in  the  death 
of  Christ  ?  The  general  answer  is,  "  It 
teaches  that  it  w^as  a  purpose  of  redeem- 
ing mercy."  But  whom  did  that  pur- 
pose embrace?  A  number  without 
number  of  sinners  of  mankind.  Still 
the  purpose  has  its  limits — limits  given 
to  it  by  sovereign  wisdom.  It  is  con- 
fined to  a  part  of  mankind.  God,  in 
his  sovereignty,  passed  by  angels,  and 
redeemed  men;  and,  in  the  same  sover- 
eignt}^,  he  passed  by  a  part  of  men, 
and  redeemed  the  rest.     The  exceed- 


48  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

ing. great  multitude  that  no  man  can 
number,  who  shall  be  found  on  the 
right  hand  of  the  Judge  at  tlie  last  day, 
are  spoken  of  in  Scripture  as  Christ's 
sheep,  Jno.  x.  11 ;  as  his  elect,  Mark 
xiii.  27 ;  as  the  church  which  he  loved 
and  gave  himself  for,  Eph.  v.  25 ;  as 
those  who  were  given  him  by  the 
Father,  Jno.  xvii.  24  ;  as  predestinated 
by  the  Father's  good  pleasure  to  the 
adoption  of  children,  Eph.  i.  5 ;  as  or- 
dained to  eternal  life.  Acts  xiii.  48  ;  as 
chosen  in  Christ  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  Eph.  i.  4 ;  as  elect  accord- 
ing to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  unto 
obedience,  1  Pet.  i.  2 ;  as  saved  accord- 
ing to  God's  own  purpose  and  grace 
given  them  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the 
world  began,  2  Tim.  i.  9 ;  as  chosen 
from  the  beginning  to  salvation,  2 
Thess.  ii.  13  ;  as  an  election  of  grace, 
Rom.  xi.  7  J  as  appointed  to  salvation, 


ADAM   AND   CHRIST.  49 

1  Thess.  V.  9 ;  and  as  predestinated  to 
be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son, 
and  called  according  to  his  purpose, 
Eom.  viii.  28,  29. 

These  Scriptures  are  very  plain.  He 
that  runs  may  read.  Ingenuity  cannot 
torture  them  into  any  other  meaning 
than  that  God  had  a  determinate  pur- 
pose to  accomplish  by  the  mission  of 
his  Son.  They  are  clear  and  explicit 
to  the  point,  that  redemption  had  its 
origin  in  that  eternal  agreement  be- 
tween the  persons  of  the  Godhead,  com- 
monly called  the  covenant  of  grace,  on 
which  the  whole  dispensation  of  mercy 
to  mankind  is  based.  An  elect  people 
was,  in  this  convention  of  peace,  given 
to  the  Son  as  the  reward  of  his  media^ 
torial  work.  The  whole  scope  and  in- 
tent of  that  divine  covenant  transaction 
will  be  fulfilled  to  a  tittle.  "  The  Lord's 
portion  is  his  people,"  and  sooner  shall 
5 


50  ADAM     AND     CHRIST. 

heaven  and  earth  pass  away,  than  a 
]>article  of  that  inheritance  shall  be  lost. 
The  plan  of  infinite  wisdom  and  love, 
conceived  in  the  fathomless  depths  of 
eternity,  was  complete  in  all  its  parts, 
and  fixed  in  all  its  results,  stretchino^ 
away  over  all  ages,  all  climes,  and  all 
peoples,  the  perfect  and  immutable 
counsel  of  Jehovah. 

A  consideration  of  the  efficacy  of 
Christ's  satisfaction  evinces  its  limita- 
tion to  a  part  of  mankind.  This  efficacy, 
as  Witsius  has  said,  is  twofold.  It  re- 
gards both  Christ  and  the  elect.  By  his 
satisfaction,  he  obtained  for  himself  a 
right  to  the  elect,  who,  by  the  promise 
of  the  Father,  are  made  sure  to  him,  as 
his  "inheritance  and  possession."  This 
right  cannot  be  vacated  :  "  Other  sheep 
I  have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold  ;  them 
also  I  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear 
my  voice,"  John.  x.  16.  Christ's  sheep 
are  his  property.     He  has  a  right   to 


ADAM    AND     CHRIST.  51 

them,  which  he  will  assert.  But  Christ, 
bv  his  satisfaction,  also  obtained  for  the 
elect  a  right  to  eternal  life,  to  be  applied 
to  them  in  effectual  calling,  regenera- 
tion, sanctification,  and  glorification. 
See  Matt.  xxvi.  28,  Gal.  i.  4,  Rom.  viii. 
29,  30,  Tit.  ii.  14,  Eph.  v.  25—27. 
These  scriptures  show  that  the  satisfac- 
tion of  Christ  procured,  not  a  bare  pos- 
sibility of  salvation,  but  a  certain  salva- 
tion for  all  in  behalf  of  whom  it  was  made. 
The  same  truth  appears  from  those 
passages  of  the  word  of  God,  which 
represent  the  work  of  Christ  as  a  re- 
demption. Now  a  redemption  is  a  buy- 
ing out  of  captivity.  The  effect  of  it 
is  liberty,  and  not  a  mere  possibility  of 
liberty.  Christ  is  a  true  Redeemer.  He 
restores  to  freedom  every  miserable  cap- 
tive to  sin  and  Satan,  whose  ransom  he 
has  paid.  If  it  be  said,  that  redemption 
is  for  all  who  will  accept  it,  I  reply, 
That  is  true,  but  none  ever  accept  itj 


52  ADAM    AND     CHRIST. 

save  those  who  are  "made  willing"  by 
a  gracious  exercise  of  divine  power. 
And  this  grace  is  granted  only  to  the 
elect.  "  The  election  hath  obtained  it, 
and  the  rest  were  blinded." 

The  nature  of  Christ's  suretyship 
proves  the  limitation  of  his  mediatorial 
work.  He  is  called  "  the  surety  of  a 
better  covenant."  He  is  a  surety,  not 
on  God's  part  to  us,  of  which  there  could 
be  no  need ;  but  on  our  part  to  God. 
A  surety  is  one  who  engages  for  another. 
There  can  be  no  suretyship,  where  there 
is  no  engagement ;  and  there  can  be 
no  engagement,  w^here  there  is  no  cer- 
tainty. It  would  be  a  contradiction  in 
terms  to  speak  of  suretyship,  and  yet, 
at  the  same  time,  disconnect  it  from  the 
persons,  in  whose  behalf  it  is  assumed. 
Christ  therefore,  if  he  be  a  surety  at 
all,  which  the  scriptures  plainly  affirm, 
is  the  surety  of  persons  known  and 
selected  beforehand.    He  took  the  law 


ADAM    AXD    CHRIST  53 

place  of  a  chosen  people,  paid  their 
debts,  satisfied  the  claims  of  justice,  and 
redeemed  them  from  death  and  hell. 
He  is,  then,  the  surety  of  the  saved  only; 
he  can  be  the  surety  of  none  else.  Are 
all  men  saved,,  or  only  some?  If  some 
only  are  saved,  then  he  is  the  surety  of 
some,  but  not  of  all ;  he  died  to  redeem 
some,  but  not  all.  If  he  is  the  surety 
of  all,  then  he  satisfied  for  all,  and  all 
will  be  saved.  For  he  himself  testifies, 
that  of  all  whom  the  Father  had  griven 
him,  of  all  who  were  embraced  within 
the  saving  purpose  of  his  death,  he 
should  lose  nothing. 

Again,  particular  election  and  par- 
ticular redemption  are  doctrines  insepa- 
rably connected.  The  former  involves 
the  latter,  as  the  cause  involves  the 
effect.  He  who  denies  the  one  must 
deny  the  other.  Election  by  the  Father 
and  redemption  by  the  Son  are  of  the 
same  breadth,  and   embrace   the   same 

5^ 


54  ADAM    AND     CHRIST. 

persons.  All  the  chosen  were  redeemed, 
and  all  the  redeemed  were  chosen. 

This  is  consonant  to  reason,  for  why 
should  the  Son  redeem  those  whom 
the  Father  had  not  chosen  to  salva- 
tion ?  What  were  the  purpose  of  such 
redemption?  Surely,  the  will  of  the 
Father  and  the  will  of  the  Son  concern- 
ing man's  redemption  were  one.  They 
were  of  accord  in  this  desio^n.  Yet 
if  the  Father  elected  only  a  part,  and 
the  Son  redeemed  all,  the  Son  under- 
took more  than  the  Father  did.  The 
purpose  of  the  one  had  a  greater  com- 
pass than  the  purpose  of  the  other,  and 
there  was  a  conflict  of  wills  in  them, 
which  it  were  both  absurd  and  impious 
to  affirm. 

But  what  reason  suggests,  scripture 
confirms.  In  his  intercessory  prayer, 
our  Saviour,  referring  to  himself,  says : 
*'  Thou  hast  given  him  power  over  all 
flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal  life 


ADAM    AND     CHRIST.  55 

to  as  many  as  thou  hast  given  him." 
John.  xvii.  2.  Here  those  whom  the 
Son  crowns  with  eternal  life,  and  those 
who  were  given  to  him  by  the  Father 
in  the  decree  of  election,  are  represented 
as  the  same  persons.  Election  and 
redemption  answer  to  each  other,  as 
face  answers  to  face  in  a  glass.  Still 
more  explicit  is  the  declaration  of  the 
apostle  in  Eph.  i.  4 — 7:  "He  hath 
chosen  us  in  him,  ....  in  whom 
we  have  redemption,  through  his  blood." 
What  can  be  plainer  than  this?  The 
persons  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ 
are  the  same  as  those  who  were  chosen 
in  him.  Election  measures  redemp- 
tion, as  one  bushel  measures  another. 
They  are  of  the  same  extent.  They 
relate  to  the  same  persons.  They  re- 
late to  all  such,  and  to  no  others.  This 
truth,  from  the  passages  cited,  is  as 
clear  as  a  sunbeam  ;  and  it  draws  after 
it  the  doctrine,  that  Christ  died  to  re- 


56  ADAM    AND    CHRIST. 

deem,    not  all   mankind,  but  a  chosen 
number  only. 

The  doctrine  is,  that  God  provided 
a  remedy  for  sinners,  which  was  no* 
to  be  applied  to  all  sinners.  Does  any 
one  charge,  that  this  doctrine  makes 
God  partial  in  his  treatment  of  his 
creatures  ?  The  same  charge  lies,  with 
equal  force,  against  the  doctrine,  that 
he  has  elected  some  to  salvation,  and 
passed  by  others.  Nay,  it  presses, 
w^ith  as  heavy  a  weight,  upon  the 
certain  and  admitted  fact,  that  God 
elected  to  redeem  fallen  men,  and  not 
fallen  ano^els.  To  redeem  men  and  not 
angels  is  as  contrary  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  as  to  redeem  some  men 
and  not  others.  Some  are  scandalized 
by  the  doctrine  of  particular  redemp- 
tion, who  yet  hold  to  the  doctrine  of 
particular  election,  though  the  dis- 
tinction between  these  doctrines  is 
clearly  a  distinction  without  a  differ- 


ADAM     AND     CHRIST.  57 

ence.  Others  reject  both  the  doctrines, 
who,  nevertheless,  are  constrained  to 
own,  because  they  cannot  deny,  that 
God,  in  the  dispensation  of  his  grace, 
discriminated  between  apostate  angels 
and  apostate  men.  Let  the  former 
defend  the  election  of  particular  men 
to  the  exclusion  of  other  men  against 
the  charge  of  unrighteous  partiality 
in  God,  and  the  latter  the  election 
of  m^n  to  the  exclusion  of  angels 
against  the  same  charge,  and  every 
word  they  utter,  pertinent  to  the  issue, 
will  be  of  equal  force  in  defending 
the  doctrine  of  particular  redemption. 
When  it  is  a  question  of  bestowing 
benefits,  on  persons,  all  of  whom  are 
equally  unworthy  of  them,  to  discrim- 
inate and  select  some  to  the  exclusion 
of  others  is  simply  a  prerogative  of  sov- 
reignty.  So  God  himself  represents 
the  matter:  ''Nay  but,  O  man,  who 
art  thou    that    repliest    against    God  ? 


58  ADAM    Am)     CHRIST. 

Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that 
formed  it,  Why  hast  thou  made  me 
thus  ?  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over 
the  clay,  of  the  same  lump  to  make 
one  vessel  unto  honour,  and  another 
unto  dishonour  ?"  Rom.  ix.  20,  21. 
Here  God,  in  amazing  condescension, 
stoops  to  vindicate  the  equity  of  his 
ways  in  selecting  the  objects  of  his 
favour.  It  has  been  w^ell  said,  that 
the  objection  of  partiality  springs  from 
the  pride  and  envy  of  man.  In  effect, 
our  Saviour  hiaiself  tells  us  so,  when 
he  says,  "  Is  it  not  lawful  for  me  to  do 
wha-t  I  will  with  my  own?  Is  thine 
eye  evil,  because  I  am  good  ?"  How 
i:inequally  does  God  bestow  the  bless- 
ings of  his  providence  !  Some  are  rich, 
others  poor;  some  are  well,  others 
sick ;  some  are  clothed  in  purple, 
others  in  rags ;  some  are  lords,  others 
slaves.      Yet  no  one  dares  to  impugn 


ADAM    AlH)    CHRIST.  59 

the  righteousness  of  God  on  the  ground 
of  these  unequal  distributions  of  his 
providence,  since  all  feel  that  they 
suffer  less  than  their  sin  deserves,  and 
enjoy  more  than  their  goodness  merits. 
And  vi'hy  should  it  be  deemed  less 
impious  to  arraign  the  justice  of  God 
on  the  ground  of  the  unequal  communi- 
cations of  his  grace  ? 

But  while  the  Scriptures  teach  that 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  died  to  redeem  a 
chosen  and  peculiar  people,  they  do  also 
teach  that  "  the  death  of  Christ  is  a 
most  perfect  sacrifice  and  satisfactioA 
for  sins;  of  infinite  value  and  price; 
abundantly  sufficient  to  expiate  the  sins 
of  the  vifhole  world."  The  cross  is  ac- 
cessible to  all,  and  available  for  the  re- 
covery of  all,  who  will  repair  to  it. 
There  is  not  a  sinner  of  mankind,  to 
whom  the  offer  of  eternal  life  is  not  un- 
feignedly  made  on  the  ground  of  Christ's 


60  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

atoning  mediation.  If  any  perish,  it  is 
not  for  want  of  an  adequate  remedy, 
but  through  their  own  voluntary  rejec- 
tion of  the  remedy.  There  is  no  bar 
to  salvation,  but  the  want  of  a  will  to 
accept  it  on  the  terms  proposed  in  the 
gospel.  It  is  true,  that  the  want  of  a 
will  in  a  moral  agent  is  a  want  of  power 
in  the  fullest  sense ;  but  it  is  not  such 
a  want  of  power  as  will  justify  the  sin- 
ner in  unbelief.  If  we  are  so  in  love 
with  sin  that  we  cannot  repent,  so  in 
love  with  self  that  we  cannot  accept  a 
vicarious  righteousness,  so  in  love  with 
the  world  that  we  cannot  love  God,  such 
an  inability,  though  invincible  by  any 
might  of  ours,  cannot  justify  impeni- 
tence and  unbelief  The  more  a  man 
is  inclined  to  sin  and  disinclined  to  holi- 
ness, the  worse  he  is.  Hence  inability 
of  will  is  no  excuse  for  sin.  Yet  this 
is  the  inability  of  the   sinner.     If  he 


ADAM  AND  CHRIST.  61 

were  willing  to  believe,  he  would  be 
able  to  believe ;  and  be  is  unable,  be- 
cause he  is  unwilling.  The  love  of  sin 
is  what  disables  him. 

Notwithstanding  the  sufficiency  of 
the  gospel  provision,  and  the  sincerity 
of  the  gospel  call,  the  natural  state  of 
men's  hearts — their  inability  of  will — 
presents  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of  their 
salvation,  which  nothing  can  overcome 
but  the  power  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 
Here  the  election  of  grace  comes  in. 
God  has  provided  a  remedy  in  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ,  adequate  to  the  removal 
of  all  the  evils  occasioned  by  the  fall 
of  Adam.  On  the  ground  of  this  atone- 
ment, he  has  made  an  unlimited  offer 
of  saving  mercy  to  the  whole  human 
family.  But  all  spurn  the  offer.  All 
continue  in  sin.  All  will  perish  in  un- 
belief, unless  the  grace  of  God  prevent 
it.     Foreseeing  this,  God  determined  to 


62  ADAM  AND   CHRIST. 

put  forth  a  gracious  influence  ujDon  the 
will  of  many  sinners,  and  constrain 
them  to  accept  the  offer  of  salvation,  so 
making  sure  to  his  Son,  as  the  reward 
of  his  sufferings,  a  "willing  people." 
But  the  provision  of  the  gospel,  being 
sufficient  for  all,  and  suited  to  the  w^ants 
of  all,  was  made  accessible  to  all.  All 
are  invited  to  share  in  it,  and  nothing 
hinders,  but  inability  of  will,  which  is 
so  far  from  extenuating,  that  it  aggra- 
vates their  fault.  Those,  therefore,  who 
thus  wilfully  refuse  the  proffered  grace, 
God  determined  to  pass  by  and  leave  to 
perish  in  their  neglect.  They  were  not 
embraced  wdtliin  the  saving  purpose  of 
Christ's  death.  Nor  is  any  wrong  done 
them  in  this  procedure.  They  are  not 
shut  out  of  heaven  by  election,  but  by 
unbelief  Election  includes  its  own  ;  it 
excludes  nobody. 

If,  then,  the  question  be  asked,  "  For 


ADAM  AND  CHRIST.  63 

whom  did  Christ  die  ?" — no  categorical 
answer  can  be  given.  We  cannot  say 
absolutely  and  unqualifiedly,  that  he 
died  for  all  sinners  3  for  then  all  would 
be  saved.  Neither  can  we  say  abso- 
lutely and  unqualifiedly,  that  he  died 
only  for  elect  sinners;  for  then  the  offer 
of  salvation  could  not  be  unfeignedly 
made  to  all  men.  The  answer  there- 
fore, will  vary  according  to  the  differ- 
ent relations,  in  which  Christ's  death  is 
viewed.  If  we  consider  his  death  sim- 
ply as  a  satisfaction  for  sin  and  with- 
out reference  to  the  particular  persons 
to  be  saved  by  it,  the  answer  will  be,  to 
borrow  the  words  of  Dr.  Mason,  "He 
died  for  sinners  as  sinners."  But  if  we 
consider  his  death  with  reference  to  the 
saving  design  of  it,  the  answer  will  be, 
"he  died  for  the  elect."  In  other 
words,  since  there  is  a  fulness  of  merit  in 
the  atonement  sufficient  to    save    any 


64  ADAM   AND   CHRIST. 

number  of  sinners,  there  is  no  impossi- 
bility in  the  way  of  the  salvation  of  all 
mankind,  except  an  impossibility  re- 
sulting from  the  state  of  their  own 
minds  ;  and  the  purpose  of  God  not  to 
remove  that  impossibility  is  simply  a 
purpose  to  withhold  from  them  an  aid 
which  he  is  under  no  obligation  to  be- 
stow ;  an  aid,  the  bestowment  of  which 
is  never  represented  in  Scripture  as 
necessary  to  the  consistency  of  invita- 
tions to  believe  and  be  saved. 

Both  these  views  I  find  in  the  Bible. 
In  conformity  with  the  one,  the  in- 
spired teachers  of  the  primitive  church 
addressed  the  gospel  call  to  all  without 
discrimination,  fearlessly  proclaiming 
that  "  the  grace  of  God  which  bringeth 
salvation  hath  appeared  unto  all  men." 
In  conformity  with  the  other,  they 
uniformly  ascribed  the  faith  of  the 
saved  to  a  divine  operation,  and  their 


ADAM   AND  CHRIST.  65 

redemption  to  a  divine  decree.  ^'  As 
many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life 
believed."  Discriminating  grace  is  the 
fountain  of  salvation. 

To  some  these  views  appear  inconsist- 
ent with  each  other.  There  is  a  diffi- 
culty without  doubt.  But  it  is  a  diffi- 
culty which  belongs  to  the  general 
subject  of  the  divine  sovereignty  and 
human  agency.  Nay,  almost  all  the 
cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Bible  are  be- 
set by  difficulties  quite  as  great.  They 
all  have  two  aspects,  which  it  is  diffi- 
cult for  the  mind  to  bring  into  one 
view,  just  as  it  is  difficult  for  the  eye  to 
bring  into  one  view  the  two  opposite 
sides  of  an  object.  The  eternal  neces- 
sary existence  of  the  Infinite  One  com- 
bined with  spontaneity  of  will,  the 
unity  and  plurality  of  the  Godhead, 
and  the  union  of  divinity  and  humanity 

in  the  same   person — these   doctrines, 
6* 


66  ADAM   AND  CHRIST. 

received  by  the  whole  orthodox  Chris- 
tian world,  to  my  mind  involve  greater 
difficulties  and  reach  to  a  profounder 
depth  of  incomprehensibility,  than  the 
doctrine  of  an  atonement  limited  in  its 
application  to  an  elect  people  by  the 
sovereign  decree  of  God,  and  yet,  by 
reason  of  its  infinite  value,  made  the 
ground  of  an  unlimited  call  to  repent- 
ance and  faith,  and  of  an  unlimited 
promise  of  eternal  life  on  condition  of 
compliance  with  that  call.  Certainly, 
these  two  aspects  of  the  atonement  are 
no  more  irreconcilable  the  one  with 
the  other,  than  the  doctrine  of  the  di- 
vine sovereignty  in  regeneration  is  ir- 
reconcilable with  the  doctrine  of  human 
responsibility  in  using  the  means  of 
grace.  Yet,  while  it  is  the  pleasure  of 
God  to  employ  human  means  in  his 
kingdom,  as  readily  might  the  soft 
strains  of  an  aBolian  harp  allay  the  rising 


I 
ADAM  AND  CHRIST.  67 

gtorm  or  calm  the  surging  ocean,  as  the 
power  of  man  quicken  a.  soul  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins.  At  any  rate,  if 
these  two  doctrines — the  doctrine  of  an 
atonement  unlimited  in  its  nature  be- 
cause of  its  infinite  value,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  an  atonement  limited  in  its  ap- 
plication because  of  the  election  of 
grace — were  a  thousandfold  more  in- 
comprehensible than  they  are,  still, 
since  I  see  them  both  written,  as  with 
a  sunbeam,  on  the  pages  of  God's  word, 
I  heartily  accept  them  both,  as  I  do 
many  other  mysteries  in  the  divine  na- 
ture and  government,  inexplicable  to 
my  narrow,  weak,  and  purblind  intel- 
lect ;  and  I  await,  with  adoring  patience 
and  hope,  the  illuminations  of  eternity. 
In  conclusion,  fathers  and  brethren, 
let  us  gratefully  adore  the  riches  of  the 
divine  wisdom  and  goodness.  What  a 
sublime  history  do  we  read  in  the  dis- 


68  ADAM  AND  CHRIST. 

pensations  of  God's  grace  !     The  Crea- 
tor stoops  to  enter  into  covenant  with 
the   creature.     The   natural   father   is 
made  the  federal  head  of  the  human 
race.     God  promises  life  to  Adam  and 
his  posterity  on  condition  of  obedience 
to  a  just  and  reasonable  law.     Death  is 
threatened  as  the  penalty  of  disobedi- 
ence.    The  trial  fails.     Despair,  dark 
as    midnight,    settles   down    upon   our 
guilty  race.     The  Ruler  of  the  univervse 
is  not  a  man  that  he  should  lie.     He 
cannot  -say  one  thing  and  do  another. 
Law  and  justice,  under  his  government, 
must  have  their  course.     The  terrors 
of  that  law  fill  us  with  amazement,  the 
thunders  of  that  justice  overwhelm  us 
with  horror.     The  judge  has  prepared 
his  glittering  sword,  and  his  hand  takes 
hold  on  judgment.     But  in  the  midst 
of  our  consternation,  the  sweet  voice  of 
mercy   sounds  •  in  our   ears — "  Deliver 


ADAM  AND  CHRIST.  69 

from  going  down  to  the  pit;  I  have 
found  a  ransom."  The  Son  of  God  de- 
scends from  the  heights  of  his  glory. 
He  comes  to  stand  between  us  and 
justice.  Law  and  justice  still  roll  on ; 
they  cannot  do  otherwise ;  but  they  move 
in  a  new  direction.  Upon  the  head  of 
the  Surety,  to  whom  our  sin  is  imputed^ 
they  fall.  This  divine  Person  enters  the 
arena,  a  solitary  combatant  against  the 
powers  of  darkness.  The  flames  burn 
fiercely  around  him.  His  humanity  is 
consumed.  He  dies  as  a  malefactor. 
But  he  conquers  death  by  dying.  In 
proof  of  which,  he  bursts  asunder  the 
iron  bars  of  his  prison-house,  and  comes 
forth  victorious,  leading  captivity  cap- 
tive. Accompanied  by  the  angelic  hosts, 
and  laden  with  the  spoils  of  his  van- 
quished enemy,  he  cleaves  the  obedient 
air,  and  enters  heaven  in  triumph, 
taking  possession  of  its  joys  as  the  re- 


70  ADAM   AND  CHRIST. 

presentative  of  those  who  put  their  trust 
in  him. 

Thus  a  door  of  hope  is  opened  for  us 
in  the  valley  of  weeping.  Repine  not, 
then,  presumptuous  man,  at  the  sover- 
eignty of  God,  nor  dare  to  arraign  his 
justice  in  the  constitution  of  the  old 
covenant.  Rather  hasten  to  secure  the 
deliverance  made  possible  to  you  under 
the  new.  If  the  first  Adam  failed,  the 
second  Adam  can  never  fail.  If  all 
was  made  gloomy  by  our  fall  in  the 
one,  all  is  made  radiant  by  our  recov- 
ery in  the  other.  Through  this  mighty 
Restorer,  it  is  in  the  power  of  every 
one  of  you,  my  beloved  hearers,  to  rise 
from  the  death  and  shame  and  misery 
of  sin,  to  a  life  that  shall  know  no  end, 
to  a  glory  that  shall  sufier  no  eclipse, 
to  a  bliss  that  shall  dread  no  forfeit- 
ure 

The   new   covenant  in   Christ    can 


ADAM   AMD   CHRIST.  71 

never  fail.  It  is  ordered  in  all  things 
and  sure.  It  is  founded  on  the  rock  of 
eternal  equity  and  truth.  It  cannot 
fail  on  the  part  of  the  Father,  for  he 
"rests  in  his  love,  and  changes  not." 
It  cannot  fail  on  the  part  of  the  Son, 
for  he  has  brought  in  an  "  everlasting 
righteousness."  It  cannot  fail  on  the 
part  of  the  Spirit,  for  he  dwells  in  our 
hearts  as  the  pledge  of  an  eternal  re- 
demption, and  the  earnest  of  an  eternal 
inheritance.  The  God  of  the  covenant 
— Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost — can 
never  fail  us  nor  forsake  us.  Not  Ga- 
briel on  his  throne,  nor  Paul  with  his 
crown,  is  more  secure  than  the  feeblest 
saint,  who  struggles  on  and  struggles 
ever,  feeding  a  trembling  hope  of  heaven 
with  sighs  and  tears  and  inward  groan- 
ings  of  the  spirit.     Amen. 

THE  END. 


